Thoughts and Reflections version 2 of the GNU General Public License the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License

Recently, I was watching television, as I do on very rare occasions, and happened to see a commercial with an attractive young man and woman. In this commercial, which is selling an anti-herpes medication, the claim is made that the product is proven only in heterosexual couples.

I wonder if they meant to say opposite-sex couples. It is perfectly conceivable that two bisexual people of differing sexes might form a couple, but that would not be a heterosexual couple.

Did the company mean penile-vaginal intercourse? That seems to be a fairly rigid definition of sex, and one that excludes numerous heterosexuals.

Even assuming that the company really meant heterosexual, did they investigate heterosexual transsexuals? The company’s definition also excludes orgies where all parties are heterosexual.

If this medication is supposed to prevent outbreaks of genital herpes, why does the sexual orientation of the partners matter? Did it occur to the company that

  • their definition is probably incorrect;

  • such an incorrect definition is misleading and dangerous; and finally,

  • sexual practices are more important than sexual orientation?

Apparently not.